Back

Revisiting the Humidity Ramp Protocol for Assessing Human Heat Tolerance Limits

Wang, F. F.; Xu, Y.; Wang, H.; Cui, M.; Hou, X.; Wei, B.; Shen, X.

2026-02-19 physiology
10.1101/2025.11.09.686670 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundHumidity ramp protocols are widely used to assess human heat tolerance limits, but the impact of ramp temporal structure (e.g., step duration) on estimated critical environmental limits (CELs) remains unclear. This study integrated theoretical modeling and empirical testing to assess these effects on apparent core temperature (Tcr) inflection points. MethodsA first-order thermal model described Tcr dynamics during stepwise humidity changes at fixed dry-bulb temperature (Tdb), with analytical solutions for increments of duration {Delta}t and sensitivity analyses across relevant time constants ({tau}). Twenty-six healthy young adults (14 males, 12 females) completed randomized trials at Tdb=42 {degrees}C: (1) slow-ramp (4-hour equilibration at 40% RH, then +6% RH/hour for 2 hours followed by +3% RH/hour; RH range: 40-61%) and (2) aggressive-ramp (30 min equilibration, then +2% RH every 5 min; RH range: 28-88%). Rectal and skin temperatures, heart rate, and perceptual ratings were monitored continuously. ResultsWhen {Delta}t/{tau} <<1, thermal disequilibrium accelerated Tcr rises, yielding prematurely low CELs; dwell times [&ge;] 60 min/step permitted near-equilibrium and higher thresholds. Aggressive-ramp CELs were significantly lower than slow-ramp (males: 29.9{+/-}1.6 {degrees}C vs. 33.4{+/-}0.5 {degrees}C; females: 30.3{+/-}0.9 {degrees}C vs. 33.8{+/-}0.5 {degrees}C), with downward shifts of 3.4{+/-}1.9 {degrees}C and 3.5{+/-}0.9 {degrees}C, respectively. ConclusionRapid humidity increments systematically underestimate heat tolerance due to thermal lag. Accurate CEL determination requires prolonged stable exposures (gold standard) or slow ramps ensuring sufficient equilibration ({Delta}t [&ge;] 60 min/step). Our findings reveal a core limitation of aggressive-ramp protocols and offer a framework for improved assessment of human environmental compensability. NEW & NOTEWORTHYThis study reveals how ramp temporal structure affects heat tolerance assessment. Rapid humidity increments in aggressive-ramp protocols cause premature underestimation of critical environmental limits (CELs) due to thermal disequilibrium. In contrast, prolonged dwell times ([&ge;] 60 min/step) in slow ramps allow near-equilibrium conditions, resulting in higher and more accurate CELs. These findings emphasize the importance of equilibration time in defining heat tolerance and provide a more reliable approach for assessing heat stress in extreme environments.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
42.0%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 11%
7.7%
3
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
Environmental Science & Technology
64 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.4%
5
Journal of Thermal Biology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
6
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.1%
7
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.8%
8
Environment International
42 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.2%
9
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
10
European Journal of Applied Physiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
11
American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
12
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.3%
13
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
14
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
15
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
16
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
17
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
18
Journal of Biological Rhythms
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
19
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
21
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 46%
0.7%
22
COVID
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
23
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%